From shivalk_80@yahoo.co.in Mon May 30 02:22:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48EBDE0771 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 02:22:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ir31sK3W+BTu for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 02:22:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm1.bullet.mail.in.yahoo.com (nm1.bullet.mail.in.yahoo.com [121.101.151.239]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 03DDCE06AE for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 02:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [121.101.151.238] by nm1.bullet.mail.in.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 May 2011 09:22:13 -0000 Received: from [121.101.151.235] by tm3.bullet.mail.in.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 May 2011 09:22:59 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1004.mail.in.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 May 2011 09:22:13 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 851342.98945.bm@omp1004.mail.in.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 63077 invoked by uid 60001); 30 May 2011 09:22:13 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.in; s=s1024; t=1306747333; bh=MQzGjYAJYUidjVhI7g3C1xJ97d0YynwIxS6fPSZ8E6w=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=1JADpBWY2+FqxD07XYMe3IIeBYt8bpWaoF6EB3FttGdwXX+LF2yzQhSwRjaHoaRXpnTjbJ5UvQzVaKk+e8HIqtZnnpIjlOu5FNwzjpnebFDXX6dqB5mrV9crqkKFFlrzeICmLAZ3wxxOEKah7S9dk9Xu/oUZoaTRLjCSPkJ+WoE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.in; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=W7EK3gK+7RiOy2cqpnQQ+9x4/B3Fl9ldh3rfYxQDLyBey3R6UzgPezMLV2zBH3wkhNAmgf1hIfJKg5yLfL9Sd30rU1cKo8fCmftBuxYPg4NH16Erot8xcB4A+Xf/4DIipjcDsdFTqHBXvJIUhdj1L4RaVmmlQXMiZpnsExHkghw=; Message-ID: <677679.62685.qm@web94808.mail.in2.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: sFCqBLMVM1nRgJvujRplhOJD5SIaR17ezdUkBgCtqXZYQlE j5cj6jQwKUYkuTdApflikZPvl3iLeLOOwEJ3rTKoVbPouxxc8leZ6HhsvyGf G_hmlFAdjsb7q8K6yRWNR32h9uthX3s7uJi1qjPpl.qI_KeM4Oo.pDBKEQR8 TNI4Wk2eeUN6.3XUiawpaY8zBd9vsYQxN27p.MJRjIy02T01Q7KWGoKrXnvM U.8Jihmt4iQpDF5YHnGo2ZhTU2gWXnll4jDmTwIT5p9_SGInw9syQ1qyr938 jo_ICvbUDUJOCdkQwXlwiADKa.6vXbUJi025UIN5nrSqPE_wSh_fXTK1CPw6 HMSCD530u_NYz0o4DhND4qLEKXIJh Received: from [121.241.96.5] by web94808.mail.in2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 30 May 2011 14:52:13 IST X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/14.0.1 YahooMailWebService/0.8.111.303096 Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 14:52:13 +0530 (IST) From: atul garg To: sip@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-390324880-1306747333=:62685" Subject: [Sip] SIP level bundeling X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 09:22:16 -0000 --0-390324880-1306747333=:62685 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I was supposed to do some implementation for the SIP message coming over TC= P, I ahve few questions in following cases- 1) I read that many SIP messages can be bundelled into one TCP packet, - =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 a) In this case, does all message belong to same SIP call(i= e. same call id) - if so then when practiacally it is possible??? =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 b) If these sip messages are of different calls, then again= what would be the scenario where IP and TCP level addresses are same but s= till messgaes are of different calls.( How UCA and UAS - multiple SIP sessi= on at same port ???) 2) In case of SIP fregmanmtion, I guess as TCP does not know the logical in= telligence of SIP message, therefore sip message can be fregmented at any l= ocation even in between sip header, before call is ..... am i correct ... TIA Atul --0-390324880-1306747333=:62685 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,

I was supposed to do some imple= mentation for the SIP message coming over TCP, I ahve few questions in foll= owing cases-

1) I read that many SIP messages can be bundelled into = one TCP packet, -
      a) In this case, does a= ll message belong to same SIP call(ie. same call id) - if so then when prac= tiacally it is possible???
      b) If these si= p messages are of different calls, then again what would be the scenario wh= ere IP and TCP level addresses are same but still messgaes are of different= calls.( How UCA and UAS - multiple SIP session at same port ???)

2)= In case of SIP fregmanmtion, I guess as TCP does not know the logical inte= lligence of SIP message, therefore sip message can be fregmented at any loc= ation even in between sip header, before call is ..... am i correct ...

TIA
Atul
--0-390324880-1306747333=:62685-- From ibc@aliax.net Mon May 30 03:35:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79635E0704 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 03:35:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.334 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.334 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.257, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hrwXtjSXIcql for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 03:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD5F8E0789 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 03:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so2281900qwc.31 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 03:35:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.181.142 with SMTP id by14mr3328302qcb.247.1306751717722; Mon, 30 May 2011 03:35:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.225.136 with HTTP; Mon, 30 May 2011 03:35:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <677679.62685.qm@web94808.mail.in2.yahoo.com> References: <677679.62685.qm@web94808.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 12:35:17 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= To: atul garg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: sip@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sip] SIP level bundeling X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 10:35:19 -0000 2011/5/30 atul garg > > Hello, > > I was supposed to do some implementation for the SIP message coming over = TCP, I ahve few questions in following cases- Hi, please ask this kind of questions in sip-implementors maillist rather than here. Anyhow I reply below: > 1) I read that many SIP messages can be bundelled into one TCP packet, - > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 a) In this case, does all message belong t= o same SIP call(ie. same call id) - if so then when practiacally it is poss= ible??? Like in *any* protocol (or lot of) on top of TCP, multiple protocol messages can arrive within same TCP stream. In fact, you could receive even just incomplete fragments of a message and then must wait until the rest arrives. So, when a SIP message (request/response) arrives within a TCP stream you MUST treat it as separate message and NEVER assume it belongs to the same call/dialog as a previous message. Imagine a TCP connection between two proxies. There can be multiple dialogs/transactions over the same TCP connection at the same time. > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 b) If these sip messages are of different = calls, then again what would be the scenario where IP and TCP level address= es are same but still messgaes are of different calls.( How UCA and UAS - m= ultiple SIP session at same port ???) Proxy A ----> Proxy B is a good example. Proxy ----> MediaServer as well. But in general you MUST NOT assume that a TCP connection just carries a single dialog, that is a big fail. > 2) In case of SIP fregmanmtion, I guess as TCP does not know the logical = intelligence of SIP message, therefore sip message can be fregmented at any= location even in between sip header, before call is ..... am i correct ... Of course. TCP is not message boundary so the receiver must buffer the received data until it becomes a valid SIP message (it could drop the connection if it takes so long as it could be an attack). -- I=C3=B1aki Baz Castillo From brett@broadsoft.com Mon May 30 05:36:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 787B9E06BB for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 05:36:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XsV-ADZDDPvh for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 05:36:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpedge.partnerhosted.com (smtpedge.partnerhosted.com [173.225.22.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1984E0651 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 05:36:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXMBXCLUS01.citservers.local ([fe80::a488:d1ec:a706:3a6d]) by CASUMHUB02.citservers.local ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 30 May 2011 05:36:04 -0700 From: Brett Tate To: atul garg , "sip@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 05:35:57 -0700 Thread-Topic: [Sip] SIP level bundeling Thread-Index: AcwetVharn4Sbo1KRC2gtfEOyhc/lwAD2eUQ Message-ID: <7FF1E5E16911C54BB2D57D4C4A2ED35A08CA6CB46D@EXMBXCLUS01.citservers.local> References: <677679.62685.qm@web94808.mail.in2.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Sip] SIP level bundeling X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 12:36:03 -0000 PiA+IDIpIEluIGNhc2Ugb2YgU0lQIGZyZWdtYW5tdGlvbiwgSSBndWVzcyBhcyBUQ1AgZG9lcyBu b3Qga25vdyB0aGUNCj4gbG9naWNhbCBpbnRlbGxpZ2VuY2Ugb2YgU0lQIG1lc3NhZ2UsIHRoZXJl Zm9yZSBzaXAgbWVzc2FnZSBjYW4gYmUNCj4gZnJlZ21lbnRlZCBhdCBhbnkgbG9jYXRpb24gZXZl biBpbiBiZXR3ZWVuIHNpcCBoZWFkZXIsIGJlZm9yZSBjYWxsIGlzDQo+IC4uLi4uIGFtIGkgY29y cmVjdCAuLi4NCj4gDQo+IE9mIGNvdXJzZS4gVENQIGlzIG5vdCBtZXNzYWdlIGJvdW5kYXJ5IHNv IHRoZSByZWNlaXZlciBtdXN0IGJ1ZmZlciB0aGUNCj4gcmVjZWl2ZWQgZGF0YSB1bnRpbCBpdCBi ZWNvbWVzIGEgdmFsaWQgU0lQIG1lc3NhZ2UgKGl0IGNvdWxkIGRyb3AgdGhlDQo+IGNvbm5lY3Rp b24gaWYgaXQgdGFrZXMgc28gbG9uZyBhcyBpdCBjb3VsZCBiZSBhbiBhdHRhY2spLg0KDQpBZGRp dGlvbmFsbHkgY29uY2VybmluZyBzdHJlYW0tb3JpZW50ZWQgdHJhbnNwb3J0cywgdGhlIENvbnRl bnQtTGVuZ3RoIGhlYWRlciB2YWx1ZSBpcyB1c2VkIHRvIGxvY2F0ZSB0aGUgZW5kIG9mIHRoZSBT SVAgbWVzc2FnZS4gIFNlZSBSRkMgMzI2MSBzZWN0aW9uIDcuNSwgMTguMywgYW5kIDIwLjE0Lg0K DQo= From gupta.kumar.abhishek@gmail.com Mon May 30 08:46:40 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A69E07F8 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 08:46:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1bJomQppMIsi for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 08:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F35E07F7 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 08:46:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so3435951bwz.31 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 08:46:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=cLkUmN9e9UIjxgQKTDvaFOh/2B+EAa4SwNd2o7iveNE=; b=GCT+eGhAT7o7WlRepMsnQIrUqdSIuYv3SsE/Rd8CU/zqzYKmZCsUkaD3zagrUd0UYs U/NIHTZpeF/yZyjFxV6Vdelze4F3Fr3KTxR+B2AMshh3Qd8XhL13g0wMf6mqTtomg76t COSCq5BTRw7O4AuTIQMBeSYhu944cilOViIJY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=vUVnzVILGODp/g6z3Jw6th62mj+D5f0J7Ch6xCzJb2CNlpOW9PnNlLmXOCc3KL5Q7X vjTsAM2am5cfKr5NimQ9m5GlG96I5Ib6nW+P62qqEMz+GRBK3Bc5FUG7O4jzDUHVwNn0 vmyZVfHPgSIM5BAHtm5f1aFDn6XnOyyAKqK/M= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.80.223 with SMTP id u31mr4608884bkk.121.1306770398241; Mon, 30 May 2011 08:46:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.122.73 with HTTP; Mon, 30 May 2011 08:46:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 21:16:38 +0530 Message-ID: From: Abhishek Gupta To: discussion@sipforum.org, sip@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6db7bcb63e43d04a48031e6 Subject: [Sip] Clarification with respect to "To" and "From" headers X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 15:46:41 -0000 --0016e6db7bcb63e43d04a48031e6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Forum, I have a simple scenario as mentioned below - EP1-------------------->SBC-------------------->EP2 As we all know that an SBC is a B2BUA device and its main function is Topology Hiding that is achieved through header manipulation. Now, for EP1, SBC acts as a UAS and for EP2 it acts as a UAC. I have configured two endpoints EP1 with IP1 and EP2 with IP2 that access the SBC through AP1 and AP2 respectively (Pls read AP as Access Point). An Access Point is nothing but an IP through which EP1 and EP2 communicate. Say, EP1 sends INVITE to SBC containing as follows - INVITE sip:5555@AP1 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP IP1;branch=z9hG4bK776asdhds Max-Forwards: 70 To: From: ;tag=1928301774 Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710@IP1 CSeq: 1 INVITE Contact: Content-Type: application/sdp (SDP not shown) Upon receiving INVITE, SBC forms a request and forwards to the EP2 as follows - INVITE sip:5555@IP2 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP AP2;branch=z9hG4bKhoiasdb Max-Forwards: 69 To: From: ;tag=98765479 Call-ID: ufs8doi8afjnfd67asdfhu CSeq: 1 INVITE Contact: Content-Type: application/sdp (SDP not shown) Although the call was successful after responses from EP2, I would kindly like to know from your side how correct is "To" and "From" header values with respect to leg2 as highlighted ?? Though there is no impact due of this behavior. If it is correct, no issues ! If it is incorrect what should be the correct behavior ? Thanks & Regards, Abhishek Kumar Gupta --0016e6db7bcb63e43d04a48031e6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Forum,

I have a simple scenario as mentioned below -


EP1---------= ----------->SBC-------------------->EP2


As we all know tha= t an SBC is a B2BUA device and its main function is Topology Hiding that is= achieved through header manipulation.

Now, for EP1, SBC acts as a UAS and for EP2 it acts as a UAC.

I = have configured two endpoints EP1 with IP1 and EP2 with IP2 that access the= SBC through AP1 and AP2 respectively (Pls read AP as Access Point).=A0 An = Access Point is nothing but an IP through which EP1 and EP2 communicate.
Say, EP1 sends INVITE to SBC containing as follows -


= INVITE= sip:5555@AP1 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP IP1;br= anch=3Dz9hG4bK776asdhds
Max-Forwards: 70
To: <sip:5555@AP1>= ;
From: <sip:1111@IP1>;tag=3D1928301= 774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710= @IP1
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Contact: <sip:1111@I= P1>
Content-Type: application/sdp

(SDP not shown)


Upon receiving I= NVITE, SBC forms a request and forwards to the EP2 as follows -

INVITE s= ip:5555@IP2 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP AP2;branch=3Dz9hG4bKhoiasdb
Max-= Forwards: 69
To: &= lt;sip:5555@AP2>
From: <sip:1111@AP= 2>;tag=3D98765479
Call-ID: ufs8doi8afjnfd67asdfhu
CSeq: 1 I= NVITE
Contact: <sip:1111@AP2>
Content-Type: application/sdp

(SDP not shown)



Although the call was successful after res= ponses from EP2, I would kindly like to know from your side how correct is = "To" and "From" header values with respect to leg2 as h= ighlighted ??=A0 Though there is no impact due of this behavior.

If it is correct, no issues !
If it is incorrect what should be the= correct behavior ?



Thanks & Regards,

Abhishek K= umar Gupta
--0016e6db7bcb63e43d04a48031e6-- From ibc@aliax.net Mon May 30 09:06:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33E3E0801 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 09:06:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.627 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.627 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jl+fpQO1vdrl for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 09:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B74E07E0 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 09:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qyk7 with SMTP id 7so2125455qyk.10 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 09:06:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.182.202 with SMTP id cd10mr3569485qcb.171.1306771581407; Mon, 30 May 2011 09:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.225.136 with HTTP; Mon, 30 May 2011 09:06:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 18:06:21 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= To: Abhishek Gupta Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: sip@ietf.org, discussion@sipforum.org Subject: Re: [Sip] Clarification with respect to "To" and "From" headers X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 16:06:23 -0000 2011/5/30 Abhishek Gupta : > Although the call was successful after responses from EP2, I would kindly > like to know from your side how correct is "To" and "From" header values > with respect to leg2 as highlighted ??=C2=A0 Though there is no impact du= e of > this behavior. > > If it is correct, no issues ! > If it is incorrect what should be the correct behavior ? Hi Abhishek. First of all, I strongly think this kind of questions should take place in sip-implementors maillist rather than here (this maillist is to discuss about SIP related specifications). Replying your question (but please, next one ask in sip-implementors) a B2BUA can behave as it wants, so if it desires it can change From/To or whatever. From the point of view of pure SIP, EP1 just cares about signalling with B2BUA (UAS) and EP2 just cares about signalling with B2BUA (UAC). --=20 I=C3=B1aki Baz Castillo From dworley@avaya.com Tue May 31 08:59:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 617CEE06BB for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:59:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.474 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fq02qPJ4eoGV for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7365CE081B for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:59:03 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAN0N5U2HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABTph13qnwCmxyGHgSVKopb X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,297,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="282473102" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 31 May 2011 11:59:02 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,297,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="658013735" Received: from dc-us1hcex1.us1.avaya.com (HELO DC-US1HCEX1.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.20]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 31 May 2011 11:59:02 -0400 Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.1.192]) by DC-US1HCEX1.global.avaya.com ([2002:870b:3414::870b:3414]) with mapi; Tue, 31 May 2011 11:59:01 -0400 From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" To: atul garg , "sip@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 11:54:19 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Sip] SIP level bundeling Thread-Index: AcweqxnEC3bNFcsSTM2f8yaHLUYKFAA/+bNU Message-ID: References: <677679.62685.qm@web94808.mail.in2.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <677679.62685.qm@web94808.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Sip] SIP level bundeling X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:59:06 -0000 The important thing to understand is that TCP provides a *byte-stream* betw= een two endpoints. In practice, the bytes will be grouped into IP packets,= but that grouping is a matter of the TCP implementation -- that grouping i= s not visible to the higher layers of the stack and is not allowed to be me= aningful. If the TCP connection is for SIP, then SIP messages follow each other in th= e TCP stream. The messages are not logically connected in any way; each me= ssage is processed based on its contents only (except for some special rule= s regarding how to route responses). The first SIP message begins at the f= irst byte of the TCP stream. The message is required to contain a Content-= Length header telling the length of the body. The end of the headers is de= termined by the CR-LF-CR-LF sequence (empty line), and following that is th= e body whose length is specified by the Content-Length header. Immediately= after the body of the first message, the second message begins. Etc. (IP= packet boundaries may fall at any place in any message, and that is not si= gnificant.) Dale